Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Quarque]

If you have a long running fortress, tree growth becomes way too extreme. Even a savannah with `sparse´ tree growth becomes an impenetrable jungle.

It´s very unrealistic and not good from a game perspective. Easy solution: make trees die after a number of years. Assume their old wood rots away, so they just disappear. Tree growth should reach a natural equilibrium if you never cut them.

[PatrikLundell]

I believe that's the wrong solution to the junglification problem. Trees typically live for a very long time, so dying of "old age" within the life span of a normal fortress makes little sense (and it would be rather annoying to have your carefully selected set of fruit trees gradually die off so you'd have to nurture replacement).

It would be far better to have an approximate tree density maximum being reached by trees suppressing other trees much further away than currently (the crown of a tree blocking sunlight at the time of sapling maturation evaluation, which doesn't even apply to cavern trees), with the distance being dependent on the biome (or, rather, the parameters defining the biome) so a savanna wouldn't get more than sparsely populated with trees, while a forest would allow for a much denser population (I made a suggestion thread along these lines a number of years ago).

Nothing is likely to happen before agriculture is overhauled, though (nutrients, possibly soil quality degradation, crop rotation...). That effort lies on the far side of somewhat mapped development "schedule", though.

[Starver]

If a more 'organic' ststem could be created ('air'-quotes because I mean it in the figurative sense, despite the other ones being true too), it'd be nice to see fallen trees (perhaps a woodcutteringless source of logs, or at least xLogsx, suitable for limited purposes) as part of that process. In the forest, they'd cause branch-damage to nearby trees, thus to help clear clearings and dell delves.

Maybe on a windswept hilltop, in the open, you could also find a blasted oak, shattered by lightning. Or a damned stunted spruce.

(Which reminds me: Beavers need to do their thing, too, where there's water that's suitably reworkable.)

[Red Diamond]

If you have a long running fortress, tree growth becomes way too extreme. Even a savannah with `sparse´ tree growth becomes an impenetrable jungle.

It´s very unrealistic and not good from a game perspective. Easy solution: make trees die after a number of years. Assume their old wood rots away, so they just disappear. Tree growth should reach a natural equilibrium if you never cut them.

The solution is actually to reduce the amount of map space in which trees are allowed to grow and cause existing trees to eat up this area, to simulate the way that established trees eliminate the competition, even if that competition is their own offspring.

I believe that's the wrong solution to the junglification problem. Trees typically live for a very long time, so dying of "old age" within the life span of a normal fortress makes little sense (and it would be rather annoying to have your carefully selected set of fruit trees gradually die off so you'd have to nurture replacement).

It would be far better to have an approximate tree density maximum being reached by trees suppressing other trees much further away than currently (the crown of a tree blocking sunlight at the time of sapling maturation evaluation, which doesn't even apply to cavern trees), with the distance being dependent on the biome (or, rather, the parameters defining the biome) so a savanna wouldn't get more than sparsely populated with trees, while a forest would allow for a much denser population (I made a suggestion thread along these lines a number of years ago).

Nothing is likely to happen before agriculture is overhauled, though (nutrients, possibly soil quality degradation, crop rotation...). That effort lies on the far side of somewhat mapped development "schedule", though.

World-gen goes on much longer than the length of the typical fortress.  Having fallen timber would ultimately be useful in adventurer mode to make campfires and stuff.

[Starver]

Meant to add to my other post that it would explain the driftwood on beaches (intangible as it yet is).

Also totally forgot to say anything about "When a tree falls in the woods...". But would that have been a sound joke?

[PatrikLundell]

I have nothing against finding dead logs on embark (or as an adventurer), and the various (magic arc) causes of tree death are fine as well, but that has little to do with the junglification problem. (And I was disappointed when I found out that you couldn't use driftwood for anything, at least not in fortress mode...).

[Azerty]

I believe that's the wrong solution to the junglification problem. Trees typically live for a very long time, so dying of "old age" within the life span of a normal fortress makes little sense (and it would be rather annoying to have your carefully selected set of fruit trees gradually die off so you'd have to nurture replacement).

It would be far better to have an approximate tree density maximum being reached by trees suppressing other trees much further away than currently (the crown of a tree blocking sunlight at the time of sapling maturation evaluation, which doesn't even apply to cavern trees), with the distance being dependent on the biome (or, rather, the parameters defining the biome) so a savanna wouldn't get more than sparsely populated with trees, while a forest would allow for a much denser population (I made a suggestion thread along these lines a number of years ago).

Nothing is likely to happen before agriculture is overhauled, though (nutrients, possibly soil quality degradation, crop rotation...). That effort lies on the far side of somewhat mapped development "schedule", though.

And how would this system deal with land becoming used by civilizations (with farmers cutting trees and setting up farms) or abandonated (i.e. no more cultivation done)? And would this system allows for forests expanding beyond their current borders?

[PatrikLundell]

I believe that's the wrong solution to the junglification problem. Trees typically live for a very long time, so dying of "old age" within the life span of a normal fortress makes little sense (and it would be rather annoying to have your carefully selected set of fruit trees gradually die off so you'd have to nurture replacement).

It would be far better to have an approximate tree density maximum being reached by trees suppressing other trees much further away than currently (the crown of a tree blocking sunlight at the time of sapling maturation evaluation, which doesn't even apply to cavern trees), with the distance being dependent on the biome (or, rather, the parameters defining the biome) so a savanna wouldn't get more than sparsely populated with trees, while a forest would allow for a much denser population (I made a suggestion thread along these lines a number of years ago).

Nothing is likely to happen before agriculture is overhauled, though (nutrients, possibly soil quality degradation, crop rotation...). That effort lies on the far side of somewhat mapped development "schedule", though.

And how would this system deal with land becoming used by civilizations (with farmers cutting trees and setting up farms) or abandonated (i.e. no more cultivation done)? And would this system allows for forests expanding beyond their current borders?

DF currently doesn't support biome boundary shifting (it can be hacked, though), but assuming DF (post Myth & Magic) supported biome shifts (which I think it will), any new saplings maturing would be subjected to the biome (or, rather, the underlying parameters) as it stands at the time of maturation. Killing "excess" trees off due to "drought" etc. would require some completely new mechanism (that might be applied to a life killing sphere as well, with trees dying individually).
Areas under some kind of civ control would need some logic for that, which probably would result in a lower tree density than the biome would have naturally. Note that the detailed level is generated from seeds by DF as the level is visited, and I think changes are kept as some kind of delta, and that generation process would have to somehow deal with things happening over time if changes are introduced.

[Starver]

Areas under some kind of civ control would need some logic for that, which probably would result in a lower tree density than the biome would have naturally.

...or higher. There's the hippies of course.

(If/when When Burnham Wood comes to Dunsinane, it could be them. Or entish treeherders.)

[PatrikLundell]

Areas under some kind of civ control would need some logic for that, which probably would result in a lower tree density than the biome would have naturally.

...or higher. There's the hippies of course.

(If/when When Burnham Wood comes to Dunsinane, it could be them. Or entish treeherders.)

I don't think hippies would actively plant trees to increase the tree density artificially, but rather manipulate the environment to produce more trees for them to enslave, i.e. modify the biome controlling parameters (pray for rain, possibly increase the soil fertility, both through elven bodily waste products and ash [burial rites for dead trees]).

[Red Diamond]

I have nothing against finding dead logs on embark (or as an adventurer), and the various (magic arc) causes of tree death are fine as well, but that has little to do with the junglification problem. (And I was disappointed when I found out that you couldn't use driftwood for anything, at least not in fortress mode...).

It is a reason to model dead/dying trees in a forest.  Such trees are also useful for general forest density management because they produce nutrients that would encourage tree growth around them, plus the growth of things like surface fungi that might be edible.

[Pillbo]

It seems like the junglification problem could be fixed using the new crown shyness mechanic.  If there is no sky available over a sapling to to grow into then the sapling should just eventually die off.  That way forest floors will have lots of saplings that won't manage to grow up until a felled tree opens a path to direct path to the sun.

I like the idea of trees dying, but they should be very long lived.

I'd like to see trees have a small percentage change of dying annually, standing dead trees could also have a small percentage chance of falling annually.  I think that scattered fallen trees would make forests feel more alive and interesting. Adding obstacles to maneuver around while providing hiding places and cover for both dwarves fleeing and invaders/ambushers attacking.  Large multi-tile trees would be serious barriers and obstacles, and possibly even be hollow and act as animal dens or shelters/homes for adventurers. Of course any downed trees could be cut for wood. 

I'd go one step further personally, though I'm sure some people would not like to see woodcutting take longer.  It would be cool for a woodcutter to fell a tree, then cut it again to turn it into logs.  This way you could attempt to route enemies with fallen trees, cut off dangerous paths, make stream crossings, or try to wall in a farm or pasture with downed trees.

[PatrikLundell]

The crown shyness "implementation" is a purely visual thing. The DF implementation is that saplings will die rather than mature if there is a crown above (i.e. shadowing is the current mechanism, with the crown shyness graphical implementation resulting in tree canopies in neighboring tiles not quite touching on a sub tile level). There are a few problems with this, though:
- Cavern trees seem to be exempt, although they still have the 2 Z level headroom restriction.
- Crowns are usually rather small, covering only a small, uneven, area close to the tree (which is similar to what trees actually cover in reality).
- It doesn't take any account of the biome, so the end state is the same regardless of the biomes supposed tree density.
- Using tree shadowing as the control mechanism does not work for any biomes that actually have a sizeable distance between trees (including their crowns).

To use canopy shadowing as a controlling mechanism you'd have to get trees in sparse biomes to spawn enormous crowns, while the same species in a more heavily forested biome would be set to shadow a smaller area.

[Quarque]

I believe that's the wrong solution to the junglification problem. Trees typically live for a very long time, so dying of "old age" within the life span of a normal fortress makes little sense (and it would be rather annoying to have your carefully selected set of fruit trees gradually die off so you'd have to nurture replacement).

It would be far better to have an approximate tree density maximum being reached by trees suppressing other trees much further away than currently (the crown of a tree blocking sunlight at the time of sapling maturation evaluation, which doesn't even apply to cavern trees), with the distance being dependent on the biome (or, rather, the parameters defining the biome) so a savanna wouldn't get more than sparsely populated with trees, while a forest would allow for a much denser population (I made a suggestion thread along these lines a number of years ago).

Nothing is likely to happen before agriculture is overhauled, though (nutrients, possibly soil quality degradation, crop rotation...). That effort lies on the far side of somewhat mapped development "schedule", though.

Your solution sounds much more practical. Do you have a link to your own suggestion thread?

I hope it gets implemented soon, because junglification is an urgent problem that can very easily be fixed. It isn't even really related to agriculture.

[PatrikLundell]

While it isn't directly tied to agriculture, Toady usually bunch things together, and there are ties to what might end up being nutrients in the logic. http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=153848.0.